Plan Amendment

North City Sector Plan Amendment

10-C-23-SP

Approved

Approve the sector plan amendment to the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use classification because it is more consistent with surrounding development and zoning. The HP (Hillside Protection) will be retained.


Request

Property Info

Case Notes

What's next?

Applicant Request

+

Property Information

+
Location
4600 ERNESTINE DR

Southeast side of Ernestine Dr, west of Irola St

Council District 4


Size
12,891 square feet

Planning Sector
North City

Land Use Classification MU-RC (Mixed Use Regional Center), HP (Hillside Protection) MU-RC (Mixed Use Regional Center), HP (Hillside Protection)


Currently on the Property
Single Family Residential

Growth Plan
N/A (Within City Limits)

Case Notes

+
Disposition Summary
Approve the sector plan amendment to the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use classification because it is more consistent with surrounding development and zoning. The HP (Hillside Protection) will be retained.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the sector plan amendment to the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use classification because it is more consistent with surrounding development and zoning. The HP (Hillside Protection) will be retained.
SECTOR PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS FROM GENERAL PLAN (May meet any one of these):

CHANGES OF CONDITIONS WARRANTING AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE PLAN:
1. The subject property is part of a small, hilly residential neighborhood that has experienced commercial encroachment. In 2019, a nearby single-family residential lot at 4619 Valley View Drive was redeveloped as an HVAC contractor yard. This use was permitted by right at the time because the neighborhood was in the C-6 (General Commercial Park) zoning district. With the adoption of the new zoning ordinance in 2020, this area was downzoned to the RN-1 (Single Family Residential Neighborhood) district, which does not permit most commercial uses.
2. The North City Sector Plan's land use classification for this area is MU-RC (Mixed Use Regional Center), which is the highest intensity mixed use center designation. MU-RC does not align with the new zoning designation following the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The proposed LDR (Low Density Residential) land use classification is more consistent with surrounding residential development and zoning.

INTRODUCTION OF SIGNIFICANT NEW ROADS OR UTILITIES THAT WERE NOT ANTICIPATED IN THE PLAN AND MAKE DEVELOPMENT MORE FEASIBLE:
1. Roads in this area are narrow and steep. There have not been apparent street or utility improvements in the neighborhood, which supports the request for a less intensive land use classification.

AN OBVIOUS OR SIGNIFICANT ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE PLAN:
1. The sector plan designates many properties MU-RC that surround a large LI (Light Industrial) designated campus where an Amazon warehouse was recently developed. In most instances, these properties are appropriate locations for more intense commercial uses. However, the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood are at the edge of this district and do not meet the location criteria for MU-RC. Such criteria include being a flat site with less than 10 percent slopes, being served by sidewalks and being off a major arterial street or interstate highway. This area is in the HP (Hillside Protection) overlay, it does not have sidewalks and, while it is near I-640, it is not accessible via the highway or a major arterial street.
2. The subject property's proposed LDR designation is more consistent with surrounding development and environmental conditions, and is less likely to have negative impacts on adjacent residents.

TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT, POPULATION OR TRAFFIC THAT WARRANT RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN PROPOSAL:
1. This is an established single-family neighborhood, which warrants reconsideration of a land use classification that permits intensive commercial zoning.

What's next?

+
This Plan Amendment case in the CITY was recommended for approval. The appeal deadline - October 20, 2023 has passed.
Applicant

Juan Hernandez


Case History